How climate change could be exacerbating the spread of diseases like monkeypox and Japanese encephalitis
"Global warming causes gays to have unprotected sex and spread disease?"
Gas For Me But Not For Thee: Obama To Install Massive Propane Tanks In New England Mansion - "Former President Barack Obama has ordered three massive propane tanks for his Martha’s Vineyard property as energy prices nationwide continue to surge... Obama has consistently argued for the importance of fighting climate change and limiting fossil fuel emissions"
Environmentalism - modern day sumptuary laws
Feminist prof who practices occult calls for human extinction to save planet - "Bloomsbury Academic published a call to action for all those who care about “climate change.” The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene by Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Angelia Ruskin University, cuts to the chase and advocates for the ultimate solution to global warming: The end of the human race. For MacCormack, “Extinction Rebellion” has a whole different meaning... “The book also argues that we need to dismantle religion,” she went on, “and other overriding powers like the church of capitalism or the cult of self, as it makes people act upon enforced rules rather than respond thoughtfully to the situations in front of them.” Presumably, MacCormack believes her solution of human extinction is an example of responding thoughtfully to the facts in front of us, although she doesn’t explain how she’s going to get people to care about “climate change” by removing the primary motivation that is offered for caring about “climate change,” which is the preservation of the planet for people and their progeny. She admits this, noting that “Everyone’s okay with the ideas of the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it.” Not so very long ago, the term “death cult” was considered to be a sinister term, not an aspirational description of the human race"
When you see humans as a blight on the environment, human extinction is the logical end goal
Meme - "China's Carbon Emission Change Since 2000: +208% *Greta happy*
India's Carbon Emission Change Since 2000 +155% *Greta happy*
United States's Carbon Emission Change Since 2000: -10 *Greta: how dare you!*"
Greta Thunberg on Twitter - "Tomorrow the European Parliament will decide whether fossil gas and nuclear will be considered "sustainable" in the EU taxonomy. But no amount of lobbyism and greenwashing will ever make it "green". We desperately need real renewable energy, not false solutions. #NotMyTaxonomy"
Ironic, given that the EU burns wood and pretends it's green
How you know she isn't actually interested in reducing carbon emissions, just like most environmentalists
Are Dutch Trains Really Running Completely on Renewable Power? - "In an “anything goes” era of news and social media, it’s not often that a post jumps off the page. But a recent piece of news about electricity caught my attention. The headline: “Netherlands Trains Now Running on 100% Wind Power”. Of course, we’ve seen headlines of this type before. For example, in 2015, Burlington, Vermont, became the first city to announce it was running totally on renewable power. That’s true, of course. Burlington’s biggest source of electricity is hydropower imported from across the region. The city also gets about a third of its power from a large biomass plant. The rest is supplied by wind and solar power, which contribute about a fifth of the city’s power. In other words, the two oldest sources of renewable power, water and wood, are carrying most of the burden for Burlington’s renewable achievement, not the sources that might come to mind when people read the headline. Do the claims about Netherlands trains also require further explanation? You bet. The claim by the Dutch railway network, Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), is almost entirely a sleight of hand. In fact, an investigation by Energy Matters finds that the electrified portion of NS mainly runs on electricity derived from coal and natural gas. “NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction,” writes author Roger Andrews. “Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.”... “Putting these numbers together indicates that only 10-15% of the electricity consumed annually by NS’s electric trains will come from wind, with the rest a mixture that includes mostly Dutch gas and coal plus a small amount of Belgian and German coal, nuclear and lignite – and maybe even a little German solar”... When challenged on its claim, NS clarified that only the electrified portion of its system runs completely on wind power. This is about two-thirds of the system. But of course even two-thirds of the NS system doesn’t run “completely” on wind power. The electrons that run the electrified portion of the NS system come from many sources, including wind, but also from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The truth is that it’s impossible to determine the source of electrons actually moving NS trains down the track. What is clear is that most of those electrons didn’t originate from wind turbines."
The Global Elite are trying to deplatform me using lies. - "A new hit piece against myself has just dropped from a very influential think tank funded by among others George Soros' foundation and Bill Gates' foundation. It is called "Institute for Strategic Dialogue" (ISD for short)... I am in good company however, as other people on their list are well known people like John Stossel and Michael Shellenberger, listing us as "super spreaders" because of our reach on social media (which just means that many people agree with us). Further in their report, they are repeatedly trying to push for social media platforms to deplatform me (and others) because I write things on climate change that they do not like. They are acting like pure Communists attempting to shut down people that they dislike. This is the kind of thing that happened in the Soviet Union. It is scandalous that it is now happening in the year 2022. This organization claim to be dedicated to "safeguarding human rights" and to "push back the forces threatening democracy". Why then are they trying to cancel people with opinions that they disagree with? Why are they opposed to people's right to free speech, the most fundamental human right and something that is also vital to uphold democracy? Is protecting dissident views not one of the most important things in a democracy? Without free-speech, we do not have democracy. Funnily enough, in their report they claim that me comparing climate change fanaticism to Communism, is actually a "dog-whistle to antisemitic tropes". This is of course absolute nonsense. Why are they equating Communism with Jews? If anything, they are the anti-semites here. I have Jewish friends who are not Communists!... But it doesn't stop there. They further try and paint a picture of me as being some kind of "Nazi", claiming that I have engaged in Holocaust denial among other things. This is categorically false and libel. This is being done to try and discredit me with lies and name calling... The report has been cleverly written, with many citations to make it look professional. However if you actually look at the citations they have provided when trying to character assassinate me, you will find that they are from discredited far-left extremists. The main source they use against me is the British far-left extremist group "Hope Not Hate". They wrote a hit piece against me many years ago containing nothing but lies and libel. I have already completely debunked that hit piece on my website. They even claimed I was "British" which is laughable and something I quickly documented to be a lie... This "Hope Not Hate" organization is so discredited, that even the Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI) labelled them as far-left extremists! Considering Sweden is a pretty Socialist country, that should be really telling... Not only that, but they also doxed me and published my home address and also my parents address online. Shortly thereafter, the family dog was poisoned by far-left extremists and I had to move for my own safety after receiving death threats. Why doesn't the ISD mention this in their report? I and my family are victims of far-left extremist attacks, but that they ignore. Not only that, but I have also received death threats from the far-right and from Nazis because of my work to support freedom. These are the far-left extremists that the ISD is using as a source to try and character assassinate me. In fact, just to show how insane the claims of "Nazism" and Holocaust denial really is, I can reveal that I have been a member of MIFF in Norway, the largest European pro-Israel group... So what is their definition of "climate change misinformation"? See for yourself. So if you don't believe in "the unequivocal human influence on climate change" and the need for "urgent action" in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, they want you censored on social media. If you post things that "erode trust in climate science" and "experts" they want you censored on social media... This climate change hysteria is weaponized to bring about more control in society... If you look at who is behind this ISD you will get a look at the who is who of the elite. In fact, they get funding from very large organizations indeed... We find Microsoft, YouTube, Google among others. We also find many state sponsors like the Swedish Ministry of Integration, US State Department, UN organizations, European Commission, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs just to name a few. It almost looks like a who is who list of the World Economic Forum attendees. This attack on me is coming from the very top, from the elite of the elite... I have called out the hypocrisy of the global elite for saying one thing about climate change, while doing another themselves... That is the job of a real journalist. Holding the powerful to account. And now the powerful are coming after me..."
Liberals claim that Israel is worse than Hitler, so his supporting Israel is just more evidence he is a far right Nazi
The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet - "If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet? Most scientists and environmentalists say yes... policymakers in the U.S. Congress and governments around the world have declared that no, burning wood for power isn’t a climate threat—it’s actually a green climate solution. In Europe, “biomass power,” as it’s technically called, is now counted and subsidized as zero-emissions renewable energy. As a result, European utilities now import tons of wood from U.S. forests every year—and Europe’s supposedly eco-friendly economy now generates more energy from burning wood than from wind and solar combined... The idea that setting trees on fire could be carbon-neutral sounds even odder to experts who know that biomass emits more carbon than coal at the smokestack, plus the carbon released by logging, processing logs into vitamin-sized pellets and transporting them overseas. And solar panels can produce 100 times as much power per acre as biomass... Enviva’s chief sustainability officer, Jennifer Jenkins, is a Ph.D. forest scientist and self-described climate activist who worked on bioenergy for Obama’s EPA. She says burning wood can help keep lights on when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing—in other words, when there’s no other renewable electricity available... Steven Berry, an economist at Yale, describes the case for biomass power as “bizarre Rube Goldberg economics” and says the models used to justify it are riddled with biased assumptions, logical contradictions and outright errors. “They don’t reflect the real world, and they don’t show up in the top journals”... U.S. pellet mills have often been located in predominantly minority communities, which has added an environmental justice angle to the politics of biomass. A local activist named Belinda Joyner, who is Black, once confronted a Black state regulator about Enviva’s expansion of the Northampton mill. Joyner told the regulator his agency was ignoring a minority community’s complaints about truck traffic and dust and a debarker that rattled at night as if someone had left a quarter in the dryer. The regulator said he was sympathetic, but as long as Enviva complied with air quality laws, he had no choice but to issue the permit... The environmental justice case against the pellet industry has never gained much traction; no mill has ever been denied a permit, and local Black leaders told me the Northampton mill is popular with their constituents as a source of jobs and a buyer of wood... “the wood pellet industry … does not advance North Carolina’s clean energy economy,” and concluded that “biomass production releases carbon into the atmosphere at a faster pace than if those forests were left intact.”... I happened to watch a legislative hearing about biomass in the Danish parliament; afterward, leaders from the left-leaning governing party and the center-right opposition both told me they were shocked by the evidence that wood-burning was a fake climate solution, and determined to push Denmark toward a different renewable path. So far, though, they haven’t. Denmark’s plan to reach its Paris goals depends heavily on biomass, eventually with carbon capture and storage; ditching biomass would require some excruciating political choices."
The scam of "renewable" energy deepens
Presumably the mills should be situated far from black communities - then the jobs won't go to black people and that will be "proof", once again, of racism
E.U. climate goals at COP26 in Glasgow tied to carbon-heavy biomass emissions - The Washington Post - "The European Union brags that its climate ambitions are more aggressive than anywhere else in the world. There’s just one problem: If the world behaved like Europe, it would be burning an awful lot of wood. Europe gets 60 percent of its renewable energy from biomass fuels... U.N. rules allow the European Union to write off the emissions as carbon-neutral, so long as sustainable guidelines are met, even though burning the fuel can release more warming gases into the atmosphere than coal... At the U.N. climate conference underway in Glasgow, the bloc’s top climate official, Frans Timmermans, a devoted environmentalist, doubled down on biomass this week, saying Europe needed it as a substitute for worse alternatives. “To be perfectly blunt with you, biomass will have to be part of our energy mix if we want to remove our dependency on fossil fuels,” Timmermans told reporters. “I do admit that it’s quite complicated to get this right.”... An E.U. study released this year found that about half of the wood-based biomass used for energy came from industry byproducts and recycled wood: About 37 percent came from treetops, branches and other tree parts, and only 14 percent probably came from whole trees."
Of course, nuclear power is not kosher
This ignores the inefficiency of biomass
Let's stop pretending that decarbonising the economy is good for jobs - "Sunderland’s canny voters have been spectacularly vindicated. Told endlessly that if they voted to leave the EU, Nissan would quit their town, they politely disregarded the advice. On Thursday, Nissan announced that, far from pulling out, it was pouring a cool billion into the old port city to make electric cars and the batteries that power them. Sunderland one, experts nil. It’s terrific news. But let’s not overdo it by pretending that we are “creating” the extra 6,200 jobs. Those jobs are coming into existence largely in response to legislation that will destroy other jobs. From 2030, it will be illegal to sell a car with a petrol or diesel engine. This has forced the sector to invest in alternative power sources. There may well be a strong ecological case for it; but there is no economic case. Do I really need to spell this out? A government cannot “create” jobs – at least, not in the round. If jobs in alternative energy were truly more productive, there would be no need for legislation – investors would already have piled in. When we tax people so as to subsidise some new industry, we eliminate the jobs that their spending would otherwise have sustained. In any case, jobs are a cost, not a benefit. Getting 100 people to build a car is plainly more expensive than letting one person build it and releasing the other 99 to do different things. In every age, people have struggled with that logic, fretting that new technologies would lead to mass unemployment. Yet every advance in mechanisation has led to more jobs as well as higher living standards... people notice subsidies more readily than their cost, and that this makes them politically popular, if economically harmful"
And this was before the explosion of inflation
Terence Corcoran: Carbon race to the bottom for subsidies - "Whether the objectives are achievable remains a great unknown, but there is no shortage of corporate executives, politicians and government officials ready to channel taxpayer dollars into projects and industries that carry massive risks and uncertainties. A good example of the carbon subsidy rush is a recent Public Policy Forum “paper” titled “Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage — The Time is Now.” The six-page document is endorsed by the Energy Future Forum, a mini-who’s who of elite Canadian energy and financial corporations — Suncor, CIBC, Imperial Oil, RBC, Shell Canada, TC Energy — along with a cabal of green sustainability activists such as the ubiquitous Ivey Foundation and the Pembina Institute. The theme of the paper can be summarized: We want massive taxpayer funding and government regulatory support to guarantee that if the whole scheme is bonkers we won’t be left with the tab... A new report from the IEA this month — The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions — documents key problems behind what appears to be wildly optimistic claims that the world can transition to electric vehicles and other clean technology without running up against massive and insurmountable shortages of commodities. The chemicals that will enable carbon-free transition are in short supply and current investment plans “fall well short” of what is needed to support an accelerated deployment of solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles. Many minerals come from a small number of producers. For example, in the cases of graphite, cobalt and rare earth elements, the world’s top three producers control well over three-quarters of global output. Prices for nickel, copper and other commodities could soar. One commentator noted the IEA observation that “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant.” Warns the IEA: “High geographical concentration, the long lead times to bring new mineral production on stream, the declining resource quality in some areas and social impacts all raise concerns around reliable and sustainable supplies of minerals to support the energy transition. These hazards are real, but they are surmountable.” How can they be surmounted? Take a guess."
Can't make it up: California asks residents to stop charging electric cars on strained grid the week after passing a law to ban gas-powered cars - "Just days after passing a ban on all new gas vehicles starting in 2035, California has had to ask their Tesla and other electric vehicle owners to stop plugging their cars in because they can't spare the electricity. But don't worry, they'll be totally ready for 100% EVs in like 13 years... This is just a small taste of the spectacular failures to come"
Tesla owner in Canada blasts “piece of trash” car for $28K battery - "A Tesla owner in Canada is not impressed with the company after he was quoted close to $28,000 to replace the battery – even though the issue began when his car was reportedly still under warranty... the air conditioner condensing unit hose leaked water onto the battery, ruining it. He was locked out of the vehicle completely and the battery replacement cost was estimated at $28,000... he had spent over $142,000 for the Tesla, and a new battery would cost $28,000 with tax and provided a TD bank receipt and an estimate from Tesla as proof... He’s warning people to not buy Teslas and hopes that his story can serve as a warning to others."
WATCH: YouTubers Claim Test with Electric Truck Ends After 85 Miles - "A group of YouTubers called Fast Lane Truck tested electric and gas-powered trucks to see how far they could haul a trailer, and the results seemed to speak for themselves... Fifty miles into the journey, the electric pickup reportedly could not reach Colorado Springs, so the driver later headed toward Castle Rock. But the gas pickup’s computer apparently said it had 129 miles of range, which was enough to get back to Longmont. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s administration’s recent push for more citizens to drive electric vehicles (EV) has become less viable as EV prices have increased over the last year, according to data... the electric pickup’s computer had trouble calculating the distance and was forced to pull over and charge approximately 85 miles into the trip"
Why some electric cars could soon be more costly to run than petrol motors - "Electric cars could soon be more expensive to drive than their petrol equivalents amid soaring energy prices."
E.W. Niedermeyer on Twitter - "EVs are currently selling at an average transaction price of $66,000, higher than the average transaction price for luxury cars. The fact that a billionaire can't get the EV he wants is actually a pretty good encapsulation of where our EV adoption policies have led us.
We've been pumping subsidies into the premium EV segment for over a decade, believing that stimulating high-end EV demand would lead to broad-based EV adoption across the market. Instead it lead to an overheated premium EV market and fewer affordable EVs than when we started.
My Brother in Environmental Activism, simply continuing to drive your seven year old Chevy Volt might actually be the best course of action for the planet?"
What do we really know about the IPCC? | The Spectator Australia - "Having concluded the latest Climate Change talk-fest – the United Nations COP26 in 2021 in Glasgow – the confected outburst of ‘unprecedented’ events has achieved little in the world of public opinion... Yet again, tipping points have threatened and failed to materialise. In 1972, the first UN Environment Program director gave the planet 10 years to avoid catastrophe. In 1982 the UN gave a date of 2000. By 1989, the UN had brought this forward to 1992. Prince Charles has submitted various ‘end of the world’ scenarios. In 2010, he gave us 8 years. In 2018, we had only 18 months left to save the word. The current outbreak of Australian glue-related environmental activism distracts us from real-world events and forces climate attention. A close look at the figurehead of the movement, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), is certainly warranted... The IPCC was founded in 1988 in large part due to the contribution of Maurice Strong. Strong was a paradox, existing as a socialist oil billionaire with an underlying agenda of wealth redistribution... Maurice Strong was one of the original catastrophists, arguing in 1972 that we had just 10 years before irreversible Climate Change occurred. As various tipping points have passed, the organisation has become mainstream, increasing in size and influence... In the real world, most scientists insist that the dividing line between science and pseudoscience is whether advocates of a hypothesis deliberately search for evidence that could falsify it, and accept the hypothesis only if it survives… Over the years there has been a tendency for an increasing disconnect between the scientific work and the summaries used by policymakers, there has also been an increasing purging of information that does not fit the required agenda. The most recent IPCC report, the sixth, was published in August 2021, yet again it described tipping points to irreversible Climate Change, tipping points which have regularly failed to materialise in the past; the latest of these is scheduled for 2030... In 2014, a survey of The American Meteorological Society found that 52 per cent of members believed global warming was ‘mostly human in origin’ – not really confirming the settled science... With each gathering, the warnings of extreme heat, sea-level rise, floods and droughts, cyclones, and ice-melt are increasing, but even the IPCC now admits to overstatement as their computer models have failed to deliver the predicted outcomes. With the apocalyptic predictions recognised as unreliable, the need for more media sensationalism becomes is increasingly necessary to maintain the fervour... From Australia’s perspective, the outcome of accelerated CO2 reduction would demand the country’s economic ruin, with further jobs exported, a decline in living standards, and no discernible effect on the world climate; this seems to be the trajectory our politicians have planned."
Meme - "ARE YOU STILL SLEEPING? IT'S PAST NOON!"
"I'M NOT SLEEPING! I'M HAVING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DAY"
"WHAT?"
"IF I STAY IN BED I DON'T USE UP EARTH'S PRECIOUS RESOURCES!"
"NO DRIVING AROUND RELEASING GREENHOUSE GASES, NO CONSUMER CONSUMPTION FRENZY... I EVEN USE LESS OXYGEN!"
"HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MAKE A LIVING?"
"I'VE SET UP a WEBSITE WHERE PEOPLE CAN BUY MY CARBON CREDITS! THEY CAN TAKE AIRPLANES AND DRIVE SUVs, THEN JUST PAY ME TO STAY IN BED!"
Airlines Fly Tons of Extra Fuel to Save Money, but Emit More CO2: BBC - "The broadcaster detailed a process — known as fuel tankering — whereby planes carry much more fuel than they need for a trip. Companies do this to avoid buying fuel in places where it costs more"
Instead of bashing the airlines, why not bash the airports for "profiteering"?
Vox - Posts | Facebook - "Your gas stove is releasing methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides into your home, even when it's turned off. That’s according to a recent peer-reviewed study. Researchers found that roughly three-quarters of the methane emitted from stoves came when they weren’t running; and that the methane emissions from stoves are roughly equivalent to the carbon dioxide released by half a million gas-powered cars in a year. Gas stoves are a relatively small source of methane compared to pipelines and refineries, and they aren’t even the biggest gas-guzzling appliance in buildings. But they’re a feature of roughly 40 million American homes. Multiplied together, that’s “a lot of natural gas reaching our air,” the study’s co-author said. Methane also contributes to ground-level ozone that harms human health. Inside the home, the level of methane is low enough that the researchers don’t consider leaks to be a health threat. The bigger health problem is when the gas is lit, because that produces nitrogen dioxide as a byproduct. The new research could help scientists piece together a better understanding of gas stoves’ impact on climate change, and bolster climate advocates’ arguments that the natural gas system is too leaky to continue. It could even hasten the transition away from gas reliance in cities."
First they came for the shark's fin
Then they came for the foie gras
I Was Invited to Testify on Energy Policy. Then Democrats Didn't Let Me Speak - "Representatives Sean Casten of Illinois and Jared Huffman of California, both Democrats, used the whole of their allotted time to claim that I am not a real environmentalist, that I am not a qualified expert, and that I am motivated by money. Had I been given a chance to respond, I would have noted that: I have been a climate activist for 20 years; my new book, Apocalypse Never, has received strong praise from leading environmental scientists and scholars; the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently invited me to serve as an expert reviewer; and that I have always been financially independent of industry interests. But I wasn’t given the chance to say any of that. After Casten and Huffman lied about me, Rep. Garret Graves asked the committee’s chairperson, Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, to let me respond. She refused and abruptly ended the hearing... climate change was distracting us from a far greater and more urgent threat, which is the global domination of nuclear energy by China and Russia, which could be disastrous for US interests and the future of liberalism and democracy around the world... several Democratic members claimed that renewables today are cheaper than existing grid electricity. But if that were true, I replied, why do solar and wind developers require hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers in the form of subsidies? The Democrats are basing their climate agenda on what California did. But California’s electricity rates since 2011 rose six times more than they did in the rest of the US, thanks mainly to the deployment of renewables and the infrastructure they require, such as transmission lines. Instead of answering that question, Democrats claimed that solar and wind projects were somehow part of the battle for environmental justice. In reality, I noted, solar and wind projects are imposed on poorer communities and successfully resisted by wealthier ones. In fact, a major new report found nearly 200 cases of human rights violations when renewable energy projects were imposed on poor communities. In Hawaii and Nebraska, indigenous leaders are resisting wind energy projects that threaten native bird species, including the nene and whooping crane, whose number one cause of mortality is transmission lines. Instead of answering that question, Democrats claimed that solar and wind projects were somehow part of the battle for environmental justice. In reality, I noted, solar and wind projects are imposed on poorer communities and successfully resisted by wealthier ones. In fact, a major new report found nearly 200 cases of human rights violations when renewable energy projects were imposed on poor communities. In Hawaii and Nebraska, indigenous leaders are resisting wind energy projects that threaten native bird species, including the nene and whooping crane, whose number one cause of mortality is transmission lines. What’s going on? Why do Democrats, who imagine themselves to be on the side of working people and the poor, advocate for renewables and against nuclear? It’s hard not to notice that some of the Democrats’ largest donors, including Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg, are renewable energy and natural gas investors. Even one of my main antagonists, Rep. Casten, was a renewable energy investor before joining Congress. Democratic interest in subsidizing renewables comes at a time when industrial renewable energy projects are being blocked around the world... The last time Democrats spent big on renewables, during the 2009 green stimulus, 10 members of former President Barack Obama’s finance committee, and more than 12 of his “bundlers,” benefited from $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in stimulus loans... Steyer, Bloomberg, and many other renewable energy investors also donate hundreds of millions of dollars to groups like the Sierra Club, which turn around and lobby for more spending on renewables, and for the closure of nuclear power plants. Killing nuclear plants is a lucrative business for competitor fossil fuel and renewable energy companies. That’s because nuclear plants generate such large amounts of electricity."
Conflict of interest is only a problem when liberals decide it is
Facebook - "Everyone applauded when Japan promised CO₂ cuts of 46% by 2030 Turns out close to impossible and "the Japanese public has not been primed for the ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ it will require." Doesn't quite fit the standard story that green makes us richer?"
Facebook - "The Left says they can't control gasoline prices... but the weather is something they can fix."
